[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 11 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S400-S401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      GREAT PLAINS SYNFUELS PLANT

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my grave concerns 
about a matter that is currently under review before the Federal Energy 
and Regulatory Commission [FERC].
  The future operation of the Great Plains Synfuels Plant, located in 
Beulah, ND, is being seriously threatened by a recent ruling in a case 
pending before FERC. This decision ignores not only the adverse 
economic consequences that the decision will have on the people of 
North Dakota and the region, but it fails to consider the strong public 
policy reasons supporting both the initial construction of the Great 
Plains alternative energy plant and its successful operation for years 
to come. I urge FERC to reconsider the ruling in this light.
  The Great Plains plan now employs 640 people in North Dakota and 
represents 20 percent of the lignite coal produced and consumed in the 
State. In addition, there are more than 400 construction workers 
presently employed at the Great Plains site who are involved in two 
ongoing capital construction projects valued at hundreds of millions of 
dollars.
  The Great Plains plant has an enormous impact on North Dakota's 
economy. Several independent economists have estimated that the direct 
and indirect economic impact of the Great Plains plant is about $500 
million every year--a sizable impact given North Dakota's small 
population.
  Great Plains was constructed with a loan guaranteed by the Department 
of Energy [DOE] pursuant to the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research Act 
of 1974. Specifically, that act authorized DOE to provide loan 
guarantees to assist in the demonstration of alternative fuel 
technologies using coal, oil shale, biomass, and other sources. Great 
Plains is the only alternative energy project still operating today 
that was built because of the Federal Government's efforts in the late 
1970's and early 1980's to achieve energy independence for this 
country.
  DOE operated the Great Plains plant for several years after its 
original sponsors in 1985 abandoned the project. In 1988, DOE sold 
Great Plains to the Dakota Gasification Co.--a subsidiary of Basin 
Electric Power Cooperative--because Dakota was absolutely committed to 
the long-term operation of the plant. Dakota's commitment was made 
based upon the continued validity of FERC Opinion 119, which approved 
the gas purchase agreements between Great Plains and the four pipeline 
purchasers, and the reasonable assumption that FERC would stand behind 
its opinion.
  Since purchasing the plant, Dakota has acted to promote, to develop 
and to demonstrate the very technological potential that first prompted 
the Federal Government to finance the plant's construction. For 
example, Dakota has produced an annual average of 157 million standard 
cubic feet of synthetic gas a day from a facility designed to produce a 
maximum of 137.5 million standard cubic feet a day with virtually no 
additional capital investment. Because of this increased production and 
its other efforts, Dakota has continued to decrease both the real and 
nominal cost of producing synthetic gas.
  At the same time, Dakota has been developing new by-products from the 
coal gasification process, such as rare gases and other chemicals, for 
commercial sale in this country and abroad. Dakota is currently 
embarking on several extensive investment projects costing several 
hundred million dollars. These projects depend upon the long-term 
operation of the plant and the continued application of FERC's Opinion 
119.
  One important project involves developing one of the plant's by-
products--carbon dioxide--as a method to enhance secondary oil recovery 
in the United States and Canada. The other project uses a significant 
portion of the plant's raw synthetic gas to produce on-site anhydrous 
ammonia for use in a commercial fertilizer that is currently imported 
into the United States and is in short supply. Another cutting edge 
technology being developed at the 

[[Page S401]]
Great Plains site uses the same ammonia by-product as a reagent in a 
flue gas scrubber system to produce yet another fertilizer, ammonia, 
sulfate. This represents the first commercial application in the world 
of this new technology, developed by General Electric Environmental 
Systems, Inc. It is a process that converts a waste by-product, which 
would have otherwise been disposed of in a landfill, into a marketable 
product.
  Mr. President, one thing is absolutely clear about the Great Plains 
facility and the work of the Dakota Gasification Co. Not only have they 
successfully commercialized the technologies that Great Plains was 
constructed to demonstrate as contemplated by the 1974 act, but they 
are also developing important new applications. Given all this, I 
sincerely hope that the FERC Commissioners will reconsider the initial 
ruling made in this case and take whatever steps are necessary to 
ensure the future operation of Great Plains as a successful alternative 
energy facility.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________